A God?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm happy to swap reasoning for NE Evidence if you are EvF

How can you say there's equally no reasoning for FSM and x-God? On one hand you have a clever joke to smite some ignorant school, on the other thousands of years of accumulated rock solid statments. Hardly similar,apart from the lack of physical/ scientific proof.

See, all I think you're really talking about is scientific proof, and not reasoning at all.

(damn - I need sleeep! lol)

There is ZERO evidence of ANY God that I know of (NE included) and ZERO of the FSM. What's the difference?

And I will GLADLY swap 'reasoning' for NE evidence too.

I have just realized too, that 'NE evidence' works oddly well. Because NE could also mean ANY (because it's pronounced the same, the letters 'N' and 'E' 'N-E') as well as non-empirical. So NE could also stand for any as in any form of evidence whether emprical OR non-empirical.

So NE seems to work really well. I will happily swap it fr0dest0r

EvF

[fr0d0]

But you didn't swap it already - unless you really meant to say 'evidence' again where I said 'reason'. Grr!

"There is ZERO evidence of ANY God that I know of (NE included) and ZERO of the FSM. What's the difference?"

LOL @ fr0dest0r I like it!

[Edwardo Piet]

When did I miss it out? I can't find.

[fr0d0]

I just quoted it up there ^^

Here it is again for you... "There is ZERO evidence of ANY God that I know of (NE included) and ZERO of the FSM. What's the difference?"

You said 'evidence' where you just agreed straight after to use the word 'reason' instead (?)

Unless you were saying what we've agreed 1000 times already, that in proof terms, there is equally no evidence for either.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh. I thought we agreed to swap 'reasons' or 'reasoning' for specifically NE evidence.

Because as I have said, these 'reasons' of yours, if they actually are a valid reason to believe that God actually EXISTS then they WOULD count as evidence of SOME form; although it would very probably have to be non-empirical (NE) because "God" is outside of the 'empirical realm'.

So since we are cutting emprical evidence out of the picture; and if these 'reasons' are actually valid in the sense that they are valid reasons to believe God actually EXISTS then they would have to count as NE evidence then (assuming we're cutting out emprical[/i].

So we're still dealing with (NE) evidence. As I have explained above, if your 'reasons' or 'reasoning' actually addresses the question and gives valid reasons to believe that God actually exists - then it would be evidence of SOME FORM.

SO - I ask for NE evidence.

I thought that what you were suggesting is the swapping of 'reasoning' and 'reasons' for specifically NE (NON-Empirical!) Evidence.

I must have either read it backwards or you phrased it backwards I think. I got the swap wrong? Lol.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Hey! Don't blame it on me! LOL (joke - sure, blame it on me)

I want to swap "NE(non empirical) evidence" for "reason"/ "reasoning"

I want to dump 'evidence'

ACTUAL EXISTENCE is of no interest to me. It's beyond any grasp. It's a theoretical state to justify scientific rationalization.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you don't care if God actually exists or not??

Do you believe he does or NOT lol? And if so, why? If you have no reasons to believe that he ACTUALLY EXISTS? (If you did have (valid) reason(s) it would at least be NE evidence).

EvF

[fr0d0]

*slap* LOL

I don't care in that way because it'd be nuts to. Like Richard Dawkins said, it'd be a waste of time. The persuit of proof of the existence of god is ridiculous/ pointless.



We just agreed several times not to use "NE evidence"I thought yet U still doing it!

*another slap*

[Edwardo Piet]

It's because the first time I misunderstood you and thought we were doing it the other way around. i.e: Replacing 'reasoning' with 'NE evidence'. The rest of the time I have simply been explaining how I misunderstood you/you misunderstood me and that I think NE evidence is better (or just evidence if you can understand I am INCLUDING NE!! and 'reasons' therefore) than 'reasoning' and 'reasons' because they are so ambiguous; and if we are actually adressing the question: "Does God EXIST?" - then these 'reasons' WOULD count as (NE) evidence anyway!!

I have already answered the rest you said already *sigh*.

As I have explained if this 'reasoning' is valid then it WOULD count as SOME form of evidence, and we have agreed that would be NE.

You have also said at times that you DO believe there CAN be evidence of God, it just couldn't be empirical; it would have to be NON-empirical (NE).

So where IS this NE evidence?

And now have you just said you DON'T care if God actually exists? Then why do you BELIEVE that he does? If the 'reasons' you have ARE indeed VALID to believing that God actually exists then they would count as (NE) evidence - if not, and you believe anyway! - Then that's plain irrational.

How can you believe something actually exists while admitting you have no valid reasons to believe so? (if you do have valid reasons, it would count as evidence since evidence is about validating actual existence (NE included)).

EvF

[Giff]

Seems very strange that you don't care if god exists and at the same time believe that god exists. As EvF said it's irrational.